Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal judge halts California law forcing Trump to release tax returns to qualify for ballot
CNN Politics ^ | September 19, 2019 | Augie Martin and Paul LeBlanc

Posted on 09/19/2019 6:42:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

A federal judge has ordered a temporary injunction against the California law requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns to secure a spot on the state's presidential primary ballot -- a law aimed at President Donald Trump, who has not released his tax returns.

In a ruling Thursday, US District Court Judge Morrison England, Jr., said that California cannot force candidates to disclose their tax returns as outlined in a new state law. England said he would make his final ruling on the law before October 1.

Even as the temporary injunction will likely face appeals from state officials, the decision marks a clear victory for Trump who sued California last month to challenge the state law. The Trump administration has resisted various large-scale efforts to obtain the President's tax returns, a battle that has largely played out in courts.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; dubyajudge; judiciary; taxes; theleft; trump

1 posted on 09/19/2019 6:42:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

[Assumed office August 2, 2002

Appointed by George W. Bush]

Alright. Good to see some common sense on the bench. At least for now. Hope he sticks to today’s ruling.

2 posted on 09/19/2019 6:48:52 PM PDT by SaveFerris (Luke 17:28 ... as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold ......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Calfornia cannot add to the requirements for federal offices laid out in the Constitution.

Democrats simply don’t like Republicans being allowed to vote for Trump but there won’t be a state primary.

This concerns the general election.

3 posted on 09/19/2019 6:55:13 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Why temporary? It seems to be patently unconstitutional on the face of it.

4 posted on 09/19/2019 6:56:47 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I agree with your premise, but California is not required by the U.S. Constitution to hold a popular vote for President of the U.S. The state legislature if free to allot the state’s electors in a manner it sees fit. In fact, I can see advantages to CA’s keeping PDJT’s name off of the ballot:

It shows how ‘undemocratic’ the dems are when it comes right down to it.
It makes any discussion of total ‘popular vote’ moot.
It causes a reaction against dems in other states (sorry California, but there are other states).
It will be fun to watch the lame stream media try to defend it

All that said, I hope CA is required to put President Trump’s name on the ballot just to pay them back for all of many lawsuits against his E.O.s and policies.

5 posted on 09/19/2019 7:08:58 PM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Notice these California legislators crafted this law so that it would not apply to members of Congress or the State Assembly.

That’s quite telling.

6 posted on 09/19/2019 7:09:57 PM PDT by david1292
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Another kick in the balls for the California Reds and crooks who run the state, from Psycho gov. Newsome, to hatemonger AG Becerra, and the Calif. State Legislature which is more like Hitler’s Reichstag bunch for lunch than true legislators.

7 posted on 09/19/2019 7:44:33 PM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

It’s a two step process. Step one is whether there is a “reasonable probability of success” in the plaintiff and “irreparable harm” may occur until the issue can be decided after full briefing

8 posted on 09/25/2019 7:16:00 AM PDT by j.havenfarm ( 2,000 posts as of 1/16/19. A FReeper since 2000; never shutting up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson